[alicebot-general] Personality models (was: Big Five personalitytraits)

[Dr. Rich Wallace]

Microsoft itself, in all its wisdom, has developed its own system of
personality classification for programmers.   Their names are "Mort",
"Elvis" and "Einstein".  Read all about in Dirk Scheuring's Blog:
http://twomorrow.twoday.net/stories/1943782/

Micorsoft also gives personality tests to prospective employees.
Viewed as a giant drama-engine that produces bad software as a
side-effect, you could think of Microsoft as a Commedie della Arte
Machine that selects Mort, Elvis, and Einstein charachters to play out
roles set up by initial conditions given by previous generations of
those same characters.   Quite a show!

On 5/23/06, Chris Lofting <chrislofting at ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: alicebot-general-bounces at list.alicebot.org [mailto:alicebot-general-
> > bounces at list.alicebot.org] On Behalf Of Helio Perroni Filho
> > Sent: Wednesday, 24 May 2006 2:06 AM
> > To: Alicebot and AIML General Discussion
> > Subject: RE: [alicebot-general] Personality models (was: Big Five
> > personalitytraits)
> >
> > --- Chris Lofting <chrislofting at ozemail.com.au>
> > escreveu:
> >
> > > These just work off two dichotomies and as such are
> > > weak. MBTI works off four dichotomies, big-5 off 5.
> >
> > Hello Chris,
> >
> > Indeed the MTBI model looks very powerful, but how
> > practical is it for bot design? I've been skipping
> > through some of the references you provided; right now
> > I am under the impression that MTBI covers a wide
> > variety of human phenomenon, but also that it is a
> > rather advanced topic for the non-initiated. Other
> > models may not be so complete, but they are good
> > enough for modeling the behaviour of fictional
> > characters, besides being more within my somewhat
> > limited grasp. ^_^'
> >
>
> The complications of the MBTI are in the number of labels and questions
> used. It can in fact be simplified due to analysis of how our brains deal
> with information - we can determine the current 'type' based on three to
> four questions and then extrapolate to a realm of fine details all due to
> the 'hard coding' of the type (given an acorn we can 'grow' the tree).
>
> The many questions of the MBTI are designed to bring out your responses to
> four dichotomies but in a manner that 'hides' that intent - they want you to
> answer without clearly recognising the types.
>
> Due to the 1/f nature of the categories so there are qualitative
> isomorphisms present when mapping the MBTI to, say, the I Ching. This is
> due, from a brain function perspective, to the SAME general dynamics
> operating in each context.
>
> Thus when my brain, working general to particular, oscillates across the
> hemispheres to give WHAT-WHERE-WHAT, that one behaviour will elicit the same
> generic quality of meaning where it is the labels of the context that make
> it 'different'. Thus the generic qualities of WHAT-WHERE-WHAT are localised
> in the MBTI to representing the persona of XNTJ and localised in the I Ching
> to represent the trigram of Fire, as it is localised in the categories of
> emotion to represent acceptance.
>
> The common 'theme' in all of these is enclosure and expanding that
> enclosure; there is a boundary present (emotionally it is a focus of being
> in 'our' gang etc) The emotion of acceptance 'seeds' the dynamics of the
> XNTJ persona with their focus on map-making, scientist, theoretician,
> strategists etc. there is a definite 'cut' or 'boundary' that is pushed
> outwards. In that push so the unknown becomes known - accepted.
>
> >From a generic bot questioning approach, you can use three Y/N questions to
> elicit the emotional nature of a context or of a person or anything else as
> long as the questions are general enough but also ordered
> general-to-particular and so layering the dichotomies.
>
> >From a mathematics perspective, each dichotomy is of a positive/negative
> form and so equivalent to the X, Y, and Z axis reduced to a their minimal
> form (our mathematics is quantitative but bounded by the qualitative -
> positive/negative. This is often 'missed' in that we consider the number
> line as 'infinite' on either side of the origin. In fact it is bounded by
> the qualities of positive/negative and we use self-referencing to make finer
> 'cuts' of the line WITHIN that bounding)
>
> Thus the three questions can generate a meaning space of a cube (2^3) (two
> question can give you a tetrahedron meaning space etc - 2^2) where further
> questions asked WITHIN the contexts of the others reflect self-referencing,
> we make finer distinctions, finer cuts, WITHIN each dimension.
>
> The IDM focus is on identifying eight basic qualities derived from
> differentiating/integrating, aka WHAT/WHERE, that are then relabelled for
> each context. These eight qualities are derived from qualification of four
> more basic qualities - a sense of wholeness, a sense of partness, a sense of
> static relationships, a sense of dynamic relationships.
>
> These are qualified by any dichotomy synonymous with
> differentiating/integrating. E.g. expand/contract. These qualities are the
> common ground for all dichotomies where local context relabel them. It is
> this common ground that makes it so easy to use one specialisation as a
> source of analogy/metaphor for another. (Composite forms are then created by
> applying the eight to each (and so 8 becomes 64, 64 becomes 4096 etc))
>
> The isomorphism means we can use the well-developed categories of the I
> Ching to extend the categories of the MBTI etc. (we are not interested in
> the divination aspects of the IC, just the qualities derived from
> self-referencing yin/yang)
>
> >From a 'bot' perspective the properties and methods of self-referencing of
> differentiate/integrate elicit patterns in need of a label and the labels
> are stored in a database. Thus one can get a bot to process information by
> making contrasts etc which is a method used in Personal Construct Psychology
> PCP, also known as PCT - T = theory.
>
> The originator of PCP wrote:
>
> "Our psychological geometry is a geometry of dichotomies rather than the
> geometry of areas envisioned by the classical logic of concepts, or the
> geometry of lines envisioned by classical mathematical geometries. Each of
> our dichotomies has both a differentiating and an integrating function. That
> is to say it is the generalized form of the differentiating and integrating
> act by which man intervenes in his world. By such an act he interposes a
> difference between incidents -- incidents that would otherwise be
> imperceptible to him because they are infinitely homogeneous. But also, by
> such an intervening act, he ascribes integrity to incidents that are
> otherwise imperceptible because they are infinitesimally fragmented. In this
> kind of geometrically structured world there are no distances. Each axis of
> reference represents not a line or continuum, as in analytic geometry, but
> one, and only one, distinction. However, there are angles. These are
> represented by contingencies or overlapping frequencies of incidents.
> Moreover, these angles of relationship between personal constructs change
> with the context of incidents to which the constructs are applied. Thus our
> psychological space is a space without distance, and, as in the case of
> non-Euclidian geometries, the relationships between directions change with
> the context." (Kelly, 1969)
>
> Chris.
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the alicebot-general mailing list
> Reply to alicebot-general at list.alicebot.org
> Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
> Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
> Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/
>